![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
Implicit in your question is the notion that, because there are less international Part 91 operations than domestic, there is no problem compromising their safety. I do not hold that view. You're assuming a significant rise in the danger to other aircraft (*You*, not I, separated Part 91 traffic from the rest.) I'm not yet convinced that adding remotely piloted aircraft to a relatively rarely-travelled slice of airspace over very sparsely populated border areas raises the danger to pilots enough for me to be worried. Frankly, I'd give much better odds to having an in-flight fire or engine failure than a MAC with a remotely piloted aircraft. The Big Sky is much bigger in the border areas discussed in your articles. Are you implying that the ground based crew operating the UAV would be able to meet the vision standards required of a certificated airman... solely through the use of video equipment on-board the UAV? I implied no such thing. However, I'm curious to know why you're implying they *wouldn't* be able to meet those requirements. Are you aware of all the capabilities of the UAV's you're talking about? I'm not so I can't make too many assumptions either way. I make no assumptions - including one regarding "hysteria". The only hysterical one here appears to be you. ![]() What has lead you to that conclusion? What led you to yours? Does "Chicken Little" mean anything to you? ![]() ...do you expect the team operating the UAV to actually take responsibility for their failure to see-and-avoid? You're assuming facts no in evidence. You didn't answer the question. :-) I have no expectation in your hypothetical scenario. The NTSB has shown a significant lack of impartiality in at least one civil/military MAC case: The NTSB has shown a "significant lack of impartiality" in a number of other cases, too, but they're still the closest thing we have to a standing impartial review board that merits trust. -- John T http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415 ____________________ |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|